|
Again with the spin.
Do you really see most of the opposition to your viewpoint as pissing and moaning about Iraqi's no longer living under Saddam? It's like thinking 9/11 was about terrorists attacking US values or some such nonsense.
You're bent on creating an opponent who disagrees based on a premise that is totally unnaceptable, such as Iraqi's being free or terrorists hating freedom. Why don't you instead discuss the real arguments your opponents advocate?
It's not about freeing people, it's about interests. If you dispute this, then fine, argue that. If not, then is it so hard to believe that I might not be comfortable because if and when it suits the US to oppress me in order to pursue its interests then I'll be living under the next Saddam?
The overthrow of a government by outside forces is illegitimate when the motives are selfish and hypocritical. That is my argument, and it has nothing to do with whether the Iraqi people should be free or not. I would applaud the US if it had followed through with its word after the first Gulf War instead of leaving all those Iraqi's who rebelled to be slaughtered. But, in reality, it did not come as much surprise considering the US could never control a bottom up reformation, and therefore left them to be killed and are now instituting a reformation they can control.
SLM3
|